Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW OF ISSUES According to the United Nation's International Migration Report--2002, 175 million persons--3% of the world's population--currently reside in a country other than where they were born. Numbers of migrants have doubled since 1975, and 60% of the world's migrants currently reside in developed regions, the remainder in less developed regions. Most of the world's migrants live in Europe (56 million), Asia (50 million) and North America (41 million). One of every 10 persons lives in developed regions, but only 1 in 70 persons in developing countries, is a migrant. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, the number of migrants in developed regions increased by 23 million persons, or 28%. From 1995-2000, developed regions received nearly 12 million migrants from the less developed regions, about 2.3 million migrants per year. The number of net migrants amounted to 18% of births, and the net migration accounted for two-thirds of the population growth in developed regions. Largest annual gains were in North America, which absorbed 1.4 million migrants, followed by Europe at 0.8 million. Globalization of the world economy--reorganization of the European Union breaking down national borders, creation of NAFTA liberalizing trade among United States, Mexico and Canada, liberalization of trade by World Trade Organization, nearly universal access to the Internet, electronic banking, inexpensive transportation options, to name a few trends--continues to free up the flow of goods and services, knowledge, and capital across country boundaries. Devastating social conflict, sagging economies, natural disaster, and war in developing countries make developed countries, by comparison, better places to live, work and prosper. Developed countries have loosened immigration policies--or been unable to enforce them--that once posed barriers to outsiders. No wonder immigration has exploded, and will continue across the globe. Recent trends and events have elevated immigration issues to the highest priority on public agendas in developed and developing countries. Immigration has positive and negative consequences not only for countries of origin [i.e., sending] mostly developing ones, but also destination [i.e., receiving] countries mostly developed ones. How countries manage consequences will determine whether immigration fulfills its promise in the world economy. Understanding the economic development--and social--impacts of immigration, along with strategies to manage them is the theme of this symposium. Developed Country Perspective Developed countries need immigrants to grow and develop their economies, and to create wealth. Unskilled immigrant laborers take low-end jobs at meager pay that native populations do not want, fostering competition in unskilled and semi-skilled labor market segments. Skilled and professional workers bring not only needed skills, but also innovative ideas, new ways of doing things, and often capital for investment, not produced in sufficient quantity or quality. Employed immigrants pay taxes and assume their share of the burden in funding health, welfare and public services. Immigrants enrich the culture of countries they migrate to. But each of these positive factors may have a downside, depending on the country and immigrant population involved. Immigrants finding jobs in developed countries may displace native populations that profess to want these jobs and may lower wages of those in the labor market. National and regional economies may be better off because of immigrant labor, but some native populations may be worse off. Working immigrants often send money back to their country of origin--remittances--draining a portion of the destination country's wealth, while making these immigrants less well off as they have little money left after remitting some of it home. Although many immigrants work, many others do not. As such they constitute a drain on taxpayers who must support them. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it